Keshar Deo Ramesh Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi)
Hon’ble Delhi High (jurisdictional High Court) have held in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi – 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Delhi) under similar facts and circumstances, refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under the original notification no.102/2007-Customs. It was also held that period of limitation for the first time cannot be introduced through subordinate legislation or notification. It was also held that limitation cannot start to run prior to crystalisation of the right to claim refund. The said ruling has been repeatedly followed in a catena of judgements including the case of CC (Import) Vs. M/s. Gulati Sales Corporation – 2018 (360) ELT 277 (Delhi) and also in the recent decision of Delhi High Court in Premier Timber and Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Imports) – 2022 7 TMI 885 (Delhi), wherein also, it was specifically held following the ruling of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that in absence of the specific provision of Section 27, being made applicable in the said notification, time limit prescribed in Section 27 would not automatically be applicable to refund under the notification.
The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund along with interest @ 12% p.a., starting from the end of 3 months from the date of filing of refund application.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The issue involved in this appeal relates to refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007, as amended by Notification No.93/2000-Customs.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant imported goods for trade and had claimed refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD), as allowable under Notification No.102/2007-Customs on 19.02.2019 The said refund claims was filed on 23.01.2019 and the same were adjudicated vide order-in-original dated 28.02.2019 as follows:-
Table
